Najib Razak / Umno & Barisan Nasional

“No need for two thirds to govern”

As at 3.25am, it has been declared that Barisan Nasional had won 133 out of 222 seats parliamentary seats contested in this 13th General Election.

Congratulations to all winners and congratulations indeed to Barisan Nasional and Dato’ Sri Najib Tun Razak for leading the victory.

I was alerted by SatD’s update in Facebook about this really good article regarding  our constitution and the effects of election results and the various subsequent scenarios that may happen. It is a Q & A session by a renown constitutional expert, Prof. Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi; the real deal. Unlike several other newbie lawyers in the Bar Council. They may be strong in twitter, but really need to learn more on what they claim to be good at.

I have posted the article in full for your reading benefit. Thank you.

__________________________________

No need for two-thirds to govern

Constitutional law expert Prof Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi thinks a two-thirds majority in parliament is a thing of the past and that it is fine to win with a simple majority. He shares his view on what happens if the tightly-fought contest ends in a hung parliament.

Q: Some say this election is too close to call, so what happens if it’s a simple majority of, say, only five seats? How stable would such a government be?

A: In democracies, majorities are small. The idea of having 80%, 90%, 70% majority is most unusual and abnormal.

The bigger the majority, the less likely there was integrity in the electoral process. It is abnormal in politics if 90% of the people agree with one side. This is impossible even in your own home with your wife and children.

You are always divided on simple issues like where you want to go for dinner or what colour your carpet should be. If two people agree on everything, that means only one is doing the thinking.

If 90% or 94% of the people vote a leader in, you can be assured there was no free thought permitted. I would be embarrassed not worried if a particular party or coalition wins a massive, unnatural support because that is not normal at all. Normal in politics is you are split down the line. If it’s a vibrant democracy and there is a high level of political awareness and legal literacy, differences are to be expected. It is a sign of a feudal society if there is too high a level of conformity.

The issue you are raising is something other countries are not so worried about. Their political morality is a bit better so they don’t worry about party hoppers so much.

Look at Australia no one got a majority but Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard managed to negotiate with independents and formed a government with a majority of two to three seats. And she’s surviving.

And in the UK, the Conservative and Liberal Democrats coalition (of David Cameron and Nick Clegg) is surviving.

There was no massive sale and purchase of MPs. You put your finger on how depraved our morality has become in the area of political ethics that we are worried some people will bolt. Ultimately, it is the issue of political ethics, of people’s commitment to a party or to principles rather than to “make hay while the sun shines”. Besides political ethics, there’s also the issue of leadership. Leaders can work with a small majority and are able to survive, as is the case in other countries.

> Malaysia has always had a two-thirds majority in parliament up until the 2008 general election and Malaysians have been very comfortable with this. Doesn’t a two-thirds majority make the running of the government smoother because everything will get through easier?

Democracy is a good form of government but it is not the most efficient because it requires discussion before a decision and allows competition of ideas in the market place. The more evenly balanced the two parties are, the more of a gridlock and deadlock there will be.

A two-thirds majority facilitates quick decisions, the quick passing of laws, the pushing aside of differences in views, but as our democratic culture grows, we have to learn to accommodate these things. Democracy is not an easy form of government. If we want democracy, we have to learn to accommodate delays in the passing of legislation, delays in the passing of the budget, and I think we will still survive without a two-thirds.

(Former Prime Minister Tun) Abdullah (Ahmad) Badawi’s and (Datuk Seri) Najib (Tun Razak’s) governments survived without a two-thirds majority.

And Najib repealed the ISA, repealed section 27 of the Police Act, repealed the Restricted Residence Act, lifted the Emergency, amended AUKU (the Universities and University Colleges Act) without a two-thirds majority. So what’s the problem?

Actually, even without a two-thirds majority you can indirectly amend the constitution by passing a law as an ordinary law. Abdullah passed the Judicial Appointments Commissions Act as an ordinary law when he didn’t have a two-thirds majority. That was actually a constitutional amendment but any law is valid until it is challenged and declared invalid by the court.

So I don’t see a problem without the two-thirds majority. Most laws and the budget require only a simple majority to pass in parliament. As for constitutional amendments, some resolutions involving Malay reserve land and re-delineations of constituencies, you would need two-thirds.

> Are Malaysians mature enough to handle a simple majority government from now on? People are saying that if Najib wins, say, 126 seats, he shouldn’t be Prime Minister because that would be worse than the 2008 general election led by Pak Lah.

That’s ridiculous! It is very unfair indeed in a democracy that a person who leads his party to power with a clear cut absolute majority must resign just because he doesn’t have two-thirds.

As to whether Malaysians are mature enough, I am not worried about whether the guy who sells nasi lemak or makes roti canai has a sophisticated understanding of issues. The point is this: within our society, there is a sufficient number of mature people who know what’s going on, understand laws and what the nation needs. We must always aspire for a standard higher than the market place. We can’t peg our ideals or practices to the mean average. It has always to be pegged above the timberline of the ordinary. We have enough mature people.

For example, we have always been told you can’t amend the Police Act and allow freedom of assembly because there will be chaos. But we have proven to the world and ourselves in Bersih 1, 2 and 3 except for one where there was some disorder primarily due to police action that we can have massive rallies without any untoward incident. Every Friday for prayers, we double and triple park our cars and don’t get into fights. There is enough maturity to wait for the guy to come out.

On Sunday mornings (because of church), the four-lane Jalan Gasing becomes a one-lane road but we tolerate all this chaos and give and take for each other. During Chinese New Year, there are firecrackers at midnight and early morning and we tolerate all this but we are not given the credit that is due. Malaysian society is far ahead in terms of inter-communal living than many other societies that are more economically and educational developed than us.

Somehow, the culture of sharing power, of permitting massive diversity, comes easily to the Malays. We have the largest pig farms in this country, which is a Muslim country, despite the fact that all Muslims have a sense of revulsion towards the pig. We allow gambling. We close an eye over very liberal forms of dressing which you find everywhere here even though it’s a Muslim majority country.

I think there is a great deal of tolerance here.

Look at the communal riots in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, southern Philippines, Lebanon, and Turkish and Greek Cyprus where they can’t live with each other.

Here in Malaysia, there are not many people who are prepared to go beyond the point where a conflagration is inevitable.

Look at the cow-head protest in Shah Alam or the firebomb (Molotov cocktail) thrown into a church. It didn’t lead to a racial riot. In India, that would have led to a communal riot right away.

What else do we have to prove? We have had 57 years of peace 55 after independence, two years before that.

> But some would argue that as a country, Malaysia has not really been pushed or tested. We have not had a change in government so people would argue that if it comes to that, people would not be able to take it.

Maybe so. But we had 57 years of political co-operation. We have the world’s longest surviving coalition (Barisan Nasional). Some credit must be given for that widely disparate groups coming together and acknowledging that there is a lot that they don’t agree on but they are prepared to be friends in sports and agree on some fundamental issues.

The Malays conceded a great deal. They conceded citizenship to the non-Malays. That is very generous. I went to the Maldives to draft their constitution. There, unless you are a Muslim you can’t get citizenship.

Malays also conceded cultural and linguistic diversity. We allow people to have their own names according to their culture. In Indonesia you can’t. In Thailand, Japan, and South Korea, there’s a great deal of emphasis on monoculture.

The fact that you have in this country Chinese and Tamil schools too is remarkable. The Chinese and Tamil schools are actually not protected under the constitution. The constitution only permits the right to learn the language but doesn’t give you the right to learn in the language. There’s a difference. Non-Malays conceded an electoral system with the rural weightage, they conceded the fact that there would be Islam, Malay language, Malay special position and that the royalty is all Malay.

There is a great deal of give and take. In Malaysia, we have proven that even if we don’t learn together, we can live together.

The thing is to find our commonality. We do that with our children. We find common grounds. Because of love, we ignore the rest. We have done that at a national level now. The most important that the Malays conceded is economic power sharing. There was no compulsory expropriation of property as in Kenya or in Uganda where Jomo Kenyatta and Idi Amin (respectively) seized the property of Asians, or in Zimbabwe where the property of the whites are being seized. Instead, Article 153 (Federal Constitution) was used for social engineering. It was an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary process which combats identification of race with function.

In many areas, it didn’t work and in many areas it didn’t produce the result it intended. But the point is this: nobody’s home or business was seized.

Social engineering was resorted to, to try and bring about the change. That’s why I think the economy is so vibrant. Malaysia used the economy to tell the people that riots, killing and hatred will not produce good results.

An American once asked me how come people here don’t kill each other. The reason for that is everyone has some stake in the country. Indians don’t want to go back to India, the Chinese don’t want to go to China, the Malays from Indonesian islands don’t want to go back to Indonesia. I think all have a place under the Malaysian sun. God has been so kind to arrange sunshine, fertile soil; we have minerals, we have rubber, palm oil, we have gas and there are no serious earthquakes or tsunamis or cyclone. It’s a very lovely country.

> Do you have confidence in the legislation for the police to keep the country together if there is a change of government?

The legislation arms the police with sufficient power, there’s no doubt about that. I don’t share the view that the repeal of the ISA, the amendment of the Police Act, or the repeal of the Emergency Law has crippled the police.

The police have plenty of preventive powers in the sense that they don’t need proof. They can arrest someone based on suspicion. And after arresting, they have to follow some post-arrest procedures such as producing him in front of a magistrate, allowing him a lawyer or under the Securities Offences (Special Measures) Act, 28 days of preventive detention is allowed. There are many laws.

The Penal Code is a fantastic law; it has almost everything under the sun. Besides that, there is the Criminal Procedure Code, laws on gun control and laws against drugs.

Don’t forget too that the constitution has a provision for more laws. Article 149 of the Federal Constitution gives the power to pass laws to combat subversion, and to pass these laws you don’t need a declaration of emergency.

Today there is no emergency but a parliament sitting could pass a subversion law.

> What constitutes a hung parliament?

In simple terms, it means a parliament that no party or grouping has an absolute majority. We have 222 seats in the Dewan Rakyat so the absolute majority is 112 seats. If no grouping gets 112 seats, that’s a hung parliament.

Theoretically, it’s possible for both sides (Barisan and Pakatan Rakyat) to have 111 seats each but it will never be like that. Normally, it’s, say, one side has 100 seats, the other side has 95 seats and the rest of the seats are won by Independents or other smaller parties (which are not aligned to either coalition). So no one can form the government because none has 112 seats. That’s a hung parliament.

> What happens if the election ends in a hung parliament and no one is in charge?

Someone must be in charge. If there is a hung parliament, there are four or five possibilities.

1. Under the British convention, the caretaker prime minister continues and gets the first bite of the cherry to try and form the government. In the United Kingdom, there was a hung parliament after the 2010 general election. The incumbent Prime Minister Gordon Brown was the losing prime minister but he remained in the saddle for a few days trying to form a government. When he failed, he stepped down, allowing the opposition leader (David Cameron) to take over to form the coalition government (between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats).

Look at what happened in Australia when the lady Prime Minister Julia Gillard did not win and there was a hung parliament. She negotiated and worked out a deal with independents and remained in the saddle.

2. The second possibility is the Nepal rule. In Nepal, the law says when no one wins a clear majority, then the party of the coalition with the largest number must get the first bite of the cherry. So if no one wins a clear majority, it won’t be with the incumbent but whichever group that has the largest number of supporters in the elected house that gets the chance to try to form the government.

Let’s say one side gets 100, the other 90, and 32 are independents or from some mosquito party. That is a hung parliament. So the side with the 100 seats will try to bring some MPs from here and some from there to get that magic 112 number. The MPs don’t have to hop or change parties or coalitions. They just have to say I will support you on a day- to-day basis. I will support your budget, your essential legislation.’

3. A coalition government with the help of the head of the state. Parliament must meet within 120 days from the date of the dissolution of parliament so you have to find a workable arrangement within 120 days.

Let’s say the incumbent can’t do anything to form the government and fails despite being given the time, and the leader of the largest faction doesn’t succeed either. The King can’t rule the country so he can play a statesman’s role to bring people together to get them to forge a coalition or unity government. That is unusual and is not contemplated by our constitution but he would have to play the role because of the incidental situation.

And in this case, the Prime Minister of a coalition government doesn’t necessarily have to come from the party with the biggest number of elected representatives. Look at what happened to Perak in 2008. DAP won 18 seats, PKR seven seats, PAS won six seats and Datuk Nizar Jamaluddin from PAS became the Mentri Besar because he was the compromise candidate (until the Pakatan state government fell due to a series of defections). So the King can appoint a member of the Dewan Rakyat who, in his opinion, commands the confidence. It doesn’t say he must come from a party with the most number. Confidence just means that he has the support to pass laws. So a leader of a small faction may well become PM on an ad hoc basis for a short term because he is the compromise candidate, as in “I don’t want you, you don’t want me so we pick him”.

4. A minority Government. A coalition could not be worked out and the person does not have the confidence of the Dewan Rakyat. But maybe through the striking of deals, he can get some important legislation like the budget passed or some critical appointments, for example, if the position of the Chief Justice or Suhakam commissioners are vacant, he can try to get these pushed through compromises and he can advise the King to dissolve the house and call for a fresh election.

The King can’t dissolve parliament and call for elections on his own. Somebody must advise him to, so the King appoints a minority leader to advise him. He will be a stop-gap caretaker minority Prime Minister whose job would be to do the critical things including advising for a new election. Within 120 days after parliament is dissolved, a new parliament must sit, even if it’s for one day only. Then it can be dissolved.

5) If none of this works and the nation is in turmoil and drifting, an emergency can be declared under Article 150.

Then there will be an executive government running the country. The King will acquire a significant role and not be strictly bound by the advice of a caretaker Prime Minister but, hopefully, he will be bound by convention to listen to advice. This gives the King a lot of discretion and this has never been exercised in this country. In this scenario, you are moving towards more instability, uncertainty and a crisis zone. I hope and pray that won’t happen.

> Is it healthy for democracy if all states are controlled by one party and the federal government is controlled by another?

It would make governing more difficult and challenging. But join the rest of the world. Governing was never meant to be a 100m race from day one you start and that’s it. Governing is not a motorway, it is a maze. In other countries, federal-state disputes are common. We have to learn to live with that. So in that respect, the mindset must change. We are so used to federal hegemony. We have to change our thinking.

> You sound optimistic about the country. Are you?

I think this country has in some respects been exceptional. In many areas in ethnic relations, we have regressed. Still, all in all, if we compare Malaysia to India, to Pakistan or Sri Lanka, we have a remarkable level of peace. The first human right is to live in peace.

In India, the Hindu population is 80%, the Muslim population is 10%, and Christians 6%.

But in Malaysia, the Malay population is 55% and the non-Malays are 45% and for that 45% and 55% to live together in a political coalition is not easy. If it was 90%-10%, one can understand where one side totally dominates the other.

Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Abdul Razak, Tun Tan Cheng Lock and Tun Sambanthan should have been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, not because they ended a war but because they created conditions of peace.

I am sure they quarrelled. I am sure they had frayed tempers and cursed each other, but in the end they came up with a blueprint on a basis of give-and-take.

Some of what we have today is from the incredible compromises that have been forged.

You and I can study abroad. In some countries you can’t do that and you can’t transfer funds. Here, you can fill up a form and transfer funds. Malaysia was a globalised economy long before globalisation. That actually allowed the non-Malay communities to fly to the heights of their competence. No one can deny that the Indians and Chinese generated a lot of wealth and their wealth has contributed to the nation partly because of the liberal economy.

It was a liberal economy with importing, exporting, free travel, and foreign business. In 1957, incredibly an Asian society had a global outlook. That was remarkable, and that’s why I say the leaders of the alliance from all three races deserved a Nobel Prize.

The way the Malays handled the colonial people too was remarkable. Instead of fighting and killing them, they put them on a high pedestal and then asked them to go home. It helped the global economy that we didn’t chase the foreigners out. The overall spirit of the 1957 constitution was one of moderation, and of give and take. They told each other very frankly that these are areas that I can’t give in and the others saying that area is non-negotiable and both agreeing to a number of things.

I’ve heard Chinese say that Chinese education is non-negotiable. I am fascinated by that. It’s not in the constitution. It is an ethnic compromise. It’s normal for people to take blessings for granted. So here, although people are dissatisfied with some of the internal policies, they had alternatives. Nobody was put with his back against the wall. That was important.

People had something to live for and something to plan for. I think that’s the secret of this country and we can recapture that. All that is needed is bold leadership. Leaders of substance do not follow opinion polls. In the last two years we saw the birth of leadership. We saw the repeal of the Emergency Ordinance, the repeal of section 27 of the Police Act, the repeal of the ISA, of the Police Act, and the amendment of AUKU. This was leadership. It took courage.

Najib understood that times and people have changed. The Malays want change and he wants to be (the) agent of transformation. The term “status quo” to many has become one that gives them security, but to many others it is a dirty word and Najib understood that.

25 thoughts on ““No need for two thirds to govern”

    • No sir, I don’t think “a two-thirds majority in parliament is a thing of the past”. It is possible to get it back again.

      Maybe the Y generation now doesn’t understand or gets easily influenced by the crude and rude Opposition propaganda because they have a poor understanding of the history of the country and does not know the background to the negotiations for Merdeka and the framing of the Constitution of the country.

      But History has become compulsory in schools starting this year and in less than one generation, the young will be looking at anti-national comments and the ingratitude reflected and propagated by the DAP with some criticism, not just gobble them line, hook and sinker for lack of understanding and for the entertainment value inherent in their dastardly remarks, comments and statements.

      I would even be so bold as to suggest that some one of Tun Dr Mahathir’s caliber would even get the 2/3 majority quicker. But for the time being, I agree that a simple majority is acceptable.

      Like

    • Not quite, especially when he says ‘the Malays from Indonesian islands don’t want to go back to Indonesia’ shit, Prof. Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi must be reading books written by LKS and gangs.

      Like

  1. “People are saying that if Najib wins, say, 126 seats, he shouldn’t be Prime Minister because that would be worse than the 2008 general election led by Pak Lah.” This is a sinister statement that preludes the question asked. And it drew an answer the wisdom of which is questionable. Even though it’s by a professor.

    That was said in the context of UMNO. It’s a political party that is some 60 years old. It was set up to protect and promote the interests of the Malays. This country has been allowed by the bloody British to develop along racial lines. Hence they allowed political parties based on race. And on religion. And allowing vernacular schools. And nobody has had the balls to change it since. And UMNO must prod on to do what it has set out to do these 60 years or so. Especially now it has become abundantly clear yet again that DAP is racist to the core, plugged the racial lines before and during the election campaign. Such that everybody can see that the Chinese voters have largely gone racial – DAPish – in their voting.

    And don’t tell me that DAP is muti-racial and not racist. Been so since party formation. Plugged the so-called Malaysian Malaysia slogan concocted by the Maha Chauvinist and racist Lee Kuan Yew. Wanting equality but not acknowledging the Special Position of the Malays and the Bumiputeras of Sabah and Sarawak. That which has been recorded in the Constitution as the quid pro quo for the citizenship right that the non-Malays got. That which has also been recorded in the Constitution.

    And why does the questioner and the professor not recognize that the “should resign” or “be eased out” remark – like Tun Dol – was an internal UMNO party matter. Which I agree, support, and now ask that it be done in respect of Najib. 133 seats is only a few seats higher than 126 referred to in the example. Some seats were lost from the total secured by Tun Dol in 2008. Najib has performed worse than Tun Dol. Despite giving away so many concessions in the name of getting Chinese votes. Which could be seen from the PRK Hulu Selangor that it could not be done – despite promising RM1-2 million to a Chinese school in Rasah. And even signing a cheque for them when it was clear that the Chinese in Rasah could’t care a damn for him/BN and voted DAP at that PRK.

    Yes, Najib should resign. Or be eased out.

    Like

    • You reap what you sow. And if you sow bad seeds, what good can there be to reap?

      And those not respecting the Constitution, opposing History be made compulsory in schools, questioning the prerogative of the Sultan of Perak (charged for sedition, court case still on), even lay on the road to block the Raja Muda’s car passing thru, being seditious all over the Internet, how can they produce or sow good seeds?

      Like

    • If Najib was prepared to give away so much to the Chinese, why wasn’t he prepared to give away to the Malays of PAS? Does anyone know what exactly PAS want and why no compromise was reached during so much talked-about UMNO-PAS co-operation proposals in the past?

      After all, it was his father Tun A Razak who had an UMNO-PAS work-together in the past, wasn’t it?

      Won’t he attempt to get a work-together or co-operation arrangement with PAS now that PAS failed to attract Malay votes and did not get more seats than the other PR parties as they had hoped at PRU13?

      Like

  2. “That’s ridiculous! It is very unfair indeed in a democracy that a person who leads his party to power with a clear cut absolute majority must resign just because he doesn’t have two-thirds.”

    No, it’s not ridiculous. The professor should take into account that it was said in the context of UMNO politics. It’s an UMNO internal matter. It doesn’t call for any actions against the other races or communities in the country. It just asks for UMNO to have a strong and pragmatic leader who is able to protect and promote the interests of the members, the Malays and the Bumiputeras of Sabah and Sarawak who have been left backward by the bloody colonialist British. Who left them largely to their own devices in the kampongs and in the interior of Sabah and Sarawak. For some 80 years of bloody British colonization, the Malays and the Bumiputeras had only 4 years of Malay school, far in between the schools, walking 4-5 miles one way to school in the peninsula or 1 hour pedaling the sampans in Sabah and Sarawak. Using the damn excuse of “non-interference in the affairs of the natives”, the bloody colonial British said.

    Since Merdeka, and especially after the race riots of 1969, “affirmative action” in the form of the NEP was carried out such that the number of doctors, engineers, accountants, lawyers etc increased from the miserable 2-3% in 1970. And now the Malays can speak up, like in this blog and elsewhere. Better than the damned DAP Cyber Troopers or band of Red Beans and their anarchistic ways. But still relatively in civilized fashion, such that generally the Chinese don’t really care for our opinions and support the thuggish and gangsterish DAP kind.

    No, Mister, it’s not a question of whether the average fellow “has a sophisticated understanding of issues.” It’s about being reasonable. Especially in understanding and interpreting laws and “what the nation needs”. True, we must always aspire for a standard higher than the market place. Yet, we can’t be having people who start to talk about going round the sensitive clauses of the Constitution via ordinary laws added therein. I hope I have not interpreted you wrongly. I’d like to dwell on your statement “We can’t peg our ideals or practices to the mean average … We have enough mature people.” But perhaps another time.

    Like

    • We cannot be compared to Australia. They have huge tracts of land in that “continent” that can sustain so many of the Indonesians, New Guineans and others who strayed course in their miserable boats fishing in the nearby seas. Yet they shoo them out and patrol their waters very rigidly. Throw trespassers into lock ups, confiscate their fishing boats – their life possession – practised the White Australia policy. Only White immigrants allowed. Well, now maybe Whites and Yellows.

      Even Margaret Thatcher once obliquely warned the Aussies of their immigration policies. Then David Cameron said multi-culturalism is dead. Yet we have multi-culturalism in all shapes and forms in this country. Vernacular schools, etc. Disregard of a national language that is a good unifying factor and many other divisive wants and desires being propagated by the Opposition.

      Can we ever be a united and cohesive Malaysian society? Proud to identify ourselves overseas etc as Malaysians, not Chinese, Indians or Malays? Would there be the kind of loyalty to country and patriotism that exists in US emerging in this country? Will there ever be long-term harmony and peace in this country? Would there be “enough mature people” to influence “the market place”? With the kind of Opposition leaders, lies, deceits, slander, twists, spins etc, etc? I don’t think so.

      Not unless there is a really strong leader who will stand no nonsense to those who don’t respect the Constitution and all the other laws of the country. And don’t bullshit about archaic laws and what not. Hell, the US still has detention without trial in Guantanamo Bay.

      Like

    • I read somewhere about “the dictatorship of the masses”. But can’t remember the details.

      Something like during a pre-revolution situation, those maintaining peace and order become no longer able to control the events. So many destructive people and anarchistic acts.

      Maybe if “not enough mature people” to influence “those in the market place” who are bent on creating disorder, a “dictatorship of the masses” can come about. Arab Spring etc. Lots of life and properties lost. Businesses suffer and the economy is affected.

      If so, can we afford that sort of thing? Why can’t we have a rigid and firm kind of rule but not contradicting the laws? Just arrest those interpreted (liberally) as breaking existing laws, let them recourse to the Courts, enlarge the judiciary to cope with such a situation.

      Like

      • Egypt, 2 years after their Arab Spring, is still unstable. Their economy hardly moving. Foreign investments is rarely heard about. 4,500 years of history since the days of the Pharoahs, they have nothing much to show except the Aswan Dam, ancient monuments and relics of antiquity.

        Libya is still topsy turvy. Syria has now suffered 70,000 – 80,000 dead and untold loss of properties.

        Considering those, I certainly go for just simple or absolute majority, never mind no 2/3 majority. But I also want a strong leader able to reign in the wild, unruly and unlawful elements. Imagine such news headings as

        – Pakatan Hooligans Beat Up Mamak Guy

        – Policewoman’s hubby mistaken for foreigner, beaten up by crowd outside polling station (The Star)

        – 3 PR Guys & 2 Banglas Arrested. Banglas Paid RM250 To Queue At Polls

        And yet they accuse the government coalition all sorts. Wild, unsubstantiated and unjustified allegations. Crazy people.

        Like

        • Surprisingly the so called Malaysian First gangsters deny the right of the very minority they claim to be fighting for simply because they don’t look like the Malaysian First kaki.

          Police report should be made. Humiliated Malaysians must made public their mistreatment by these gangsters. The Malaysian Police must round up these racist gangsters, Malaysia simply don’t deserve them. Bersih should come forward and document the intimidation employs by certain political parties to deny Malaysians to vote. A tribunal must be set up, so that this won’t recur.

          Glad to see Kantonis being used for a good used to shut up these racist gangsters!

          Like

  3. Hikmah:

    Anwar lost his mandate to be PM or leader of pakatan, should resign.
    Izzah is mute after her win even though she screams UMNO phantom voters.
    DAP increased their seats even with “unfree” and “unfair” election.
    PAS with its Hudud is humiliated by DAP.
    Ambiga has just lost her voice and sari – dare she scream flawed election and deny DAP’s win.

    Urgent:

    Najib must destroy his sino-tinted glasses.
    Revive the Satu Sekolah untuk Semua.
    Drill into the bumi’s minds that chinese are racists (including MCA).
    Woo PAS and PKR (minus anwar) for Malay Islam consolidation.

    Like

    • I like that “lost her sari”, sir!

      But if she behaves like true Officers of the Law (like all lawyers, I’m told, should be), not show bad examples by demonstrating without permits etc (before the Peaceful Assembly Act came into effect), I’ll get her another sari, I promise you.

      Like

      • And that’s a BN promise, mind you. Not the Pakatan election-manifesto-not-a-promise one.

        Gee, what’s going to happen to the 11,500 (is it more?) legal suits at the Shah Alam High Court against the Pakatan Rakyat government for not delivering their promises in 2008?

        Pssst, has everyone stopped campaigning?

        Like

  4. It’s never the best time for satu sekolah untuk semua than now! Or the usual naming convention, Satu Sekolah 1 Malaysia. The chinese has totally abandoned BN despite all the carefull government policies and millions thrown at their precious vernacular schools. Too long these schools has been the breeding ground to racist mentality and the most biggest hurdle to this country assimilation process. Grow some balls and stand up to the real aspirations of our forefathers. Spin it whichever ways you want but the chinese can’t have it both ways, afraid of losing their bigger pie of wealth and at the same time pretend to support the government.

    Like

    • I agree with you. But I seriously doubt Najib would do it. I suspect he wants to stay on as PM and find other reasons for the poor showing than “abandonment” by the Chinese. I won’t be surprised if he’d still offer MCA and Gerakan cabinet posts. Though Chua Soi Lek has said last night he would stick to his party’s resolution not to accept government posts if not performing better than 2008.

      Unless Tun Dr Mahathir makes noise. The UMNO Supreme Council may listen, like they did after Tun Dol’s debacle. But wonder how much obliged TDM is to Najib, after having made his son Mukhriz an MB.

      Like

    • Once in a blue moon, sanity prevails in some people –

      I will not seek re-election as MCA president, says Soi Lek
      The Star Online – ‎24 minutes ago‎

      But that blue moon comes only after the green moon has descended upon Batu Pahat, his hometown and that of racist DAP Lim Kit Siang. Deputy Minister and Supreme Council member (?) Puad Zarkashi lost his seat to PAS candidate there.

      And after the Fizzy drinks fella, Strategic Director of Cows etc, had won a thumping majority in Pandan where Soi Lek’s rival and arch enemy Tee Kiat won before.

      Like

    • Agree. The recent election results point towards one conclusion : that we are not wrong to suspect vernacular schools as one of the main breeding grounds for racism and a divisive society. Why not be fair – let’s have the 1Malaysia schools but offer Mandarin/Tamil/Kadazan/Iban/etc classes in the afternoon, just like the Agama School for the Muslim kids. Then, all our kids can learn together at least part of their days. There’s an outbreak of racism now, we need to find a cure fast. The medicine may be bitter, but the alternative may be death to racial harmony in Malaysia.

      Like

      • Very good points, my friend.

        DS Najib must realize that whatever he did for Chinese education and Chinese schools brought no Parliamentary or State seats to him. Anybody thinks otherwise? Can show some proofs or provide convincing arguments?

        So, why does it matter now if he implements the single-stream schooling system?

        Like

  5. Yes, a government without simple majority can still be effective provided that we have an efficient and responsible opposition as well. My worry is: looking at the other side, there are too many extremists, drama queens/kings and personal glory hunters that could wreck Malaysia and turn this country into another failed Muslim nation. I fear that these people are taking advantage of the kindness of PM. I heard there will be another demo in KL tomorrow. I wonder for what? Unhappy that LKS has beaten GO at Gelang Patah or the fact that 40,000 Banglas help PR to retain Selangor under Pakatan Rakyat? These people are freaking mad and certainly don’t have any love for the country anymore. Menyusahkan rakyat tak sudah-sudah!

    Like

    • Yes, the key words are “provided that we have a .. responsible opposition.” I’m wondering why the professor didn’t say those.

      Agree that on “the other side, there are too many extremists, drama queens/kings and personal glory hunters that could wreck Malaysia and turn this country into another failed Muslim nation.” There are seditionists, subversives and anarchists, too. Aiseh, we are a multi-racial country, grappling with huge problems of unity and can easily be subverted, man. Many are not even respecting the Constitution of the country.

      I also share the feeling that “these people are taking advantage of the kindness of PM.” Taking accomodation by the authorities as a sign of weakness, non-arrest or prosecution as fear of so-called “people’s power” and what nonsense.

      They get emboldened and become relentless. Now even Bersih is talking of not recognizing the newly and democratically elected government. Who the hell do they think they are? The image of dictator and “cannibalistic/ man eater” Idi Amin of Uganda crosses one’s mind when thinking of how to deal with these errant blokes.

      Blardy hell, the international observers have said that the elections were transparent, fair, democratic, etc, man. Or woman. I have a lot of profanities against that Bersih woman but won’t utter them out of respect for JMD.

      Like

      • Please allow me to copy paste the following comment from elsewhere that’d be relevant as a response to the above comment:

        “That’s why BN has to set up the equivalent of the DAP Cyber Trooper Red devils brigade – SET UP A BARISAN NATIONAL FULL-TIME CYBER TROOPERS team.

        There may be thousands now doing it on voluntary basis. But BN should identify the good ones in the existing cyber space, get those not gainfully or fully employed, house them in a proper office, pay them salaries, do nothing else but whack the Opposition day in and day out until the next elections.

        Organize them under a leader, some one trained and experienced in psychological warfare, dirty tricks department kind of activities, disinformation, misinformation and what have you. Have a comprehensive plan of action, identify specific targets, list out the blogs, in all the relevant languages, determine priorities, co-ordinated theme of attacks, get ready the kind of info and lines of arguments to whack them with, etc, etc.

        5 years of solid whacking until the next election. Then continue after the next election until the DAP becomes hated and treated as shit by the general populace.”

        My comment:

        That’ll be real cyber warfare. Effects on the populace? Readers, including Generation Y, can then see the other side of the coin.

        Adverse effects? Didn’t Professor Shad Faruqi say there’s “enough mature people” to take care of “the market place”?

        Like

        • Excuse me for typing the following in capital letters. But the message being conveyed in relation to the above comment is important.

          UMNO/BN MUST FIND OUT THE BASIS USED BY GOOGLE IN LISTING NEWS HEADLINES ON GOOGLE NEWS PAGE. IF BASED ON “POPULARITY”, IS IT NUMBER OF HITS OR WHAT. THEN ACT ACCORDINGLY TO GET A BALANCE IN THE NUMBER OF PRO-BN NEWS HEADINGS LISTED COMPARED TO THE PRO-PR LISTINGS. THIS MUST HAVE CONSIDERABLE INFLUENCE ON PRU13 VOTERS.

          ONE SEES MALAYSIA KINI, MALAYSIAN INSIDER, FREE MALAYSIA TODAY AND MALAYSIA CHRONICLE ALWAYS THERE, OFTEN ON THE TOP PART OF THE PAGE. EVEN BERNAMA, THE NATIONAL NEWS AGENCY, IS HARDLY SEEN IN GOOGLE NEWS PAGE.

          THE MINISTER OF INFORMATION MUST ALSO ACT ON THIS. GOOGLE IS A BUSINESS ORGANIZATION AND HAS AN OFFICE IN MALAYSIA/ SINGAPORE. SURELY THE MATTER OF BALANCE IN MALAYSIAN NEWS HEADINGS CAN BE DISCUSSED/ NEGOTIATED WITH THEM ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

          Like

Astound us with your intelligence!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s